Photo courtesy of Sri Lanka Guardian
As Sri Lanka approaches a critical election many citizens, disillusioned with the incumbent government and the economic crisis, are pinning their hopes on the National People’s Power (NPP) alliance. The NPP, particularly its driving force, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), has attracted support from those seeking “system change” and improved governance. However voters should understand the internal structures and governance models that underpin the JVP as these will likely shape any future NPP administration.
The JVP, as an orthodox communist party, adheres to organizational principles that differ significantly from those of traditional political parties. These structures, while effective for party discipline and control, may not align with the expectations of those seeking Western-style democratic governance. To understand this potential disconnect, we must examine the core principles of communist state administration.
According to Astrid Hedin’s paper “Communist State Administrative Structures” (2021), communist models of state administration constitute a type or “family” whose core logic and design differ fundamentally from Western standards of rule-bound, impartial and transparent administration, at arm’s length from political control.
Hedin identifies several key features of communist administrative structures, the most significant of which is the Communist Party’s aspiration to merge politics and administration in all spheres of society. The so-called nomenclature system of cadre appointment ensures that politically reliable administrators occupy the influential positions within state and local administration, the military and security sector, state-owned enterprises, associations, media, cultural life and the Communist Party organization itself.
The nomenclature system is a comprehensive mechanism for personnel management and appointment that ensures party loyalty throughout all levels of administration. The party maintains lists of positions (nomenklatura) in government, state enterprises, educational institutions and even social organizations that are deemed crucial for maintaining political control. The party reserves the right to approve or veto appointments to these positions, effectively ensuring that only individuals deemed politically reliable occupy roles of influence.
The central nomenclature system branches out into new pyramids at lower levels where local managers appoint cadre. The linchpin of this system is the personnel dossier, which collects the individual administrator’s political and professional evaluations and follows the individual throughout their career.
Although communist regimes maintain nominal legislatures and judiciaries, they are foremost ruled by decree by the executive of the Communist Party, the Politburo. The Politburo relies on its administration – the party “apparatus” – to guide and enforce policy implementation. Notably, when the Politburo instructs the ministries and state administration, it generally does so without passing legislation in any parliamentary assembly. Furthermore, the Politburo apparatus controls and directs the ministries and state administration directly, often by direct verbal instruction.
The peculiar practices under communist regimes reflect the core doctrines of democratic centralism, unity of power and socialist legality under the vanguard party. These concepts were launched by the leader of the Russian revolution, Vladimir Lenin (1870–1924). They have remained fundamental organizational principles in communist state constitutions, in the statutes of their socialist parties and institutionalized practices of communist state administration.
Democratic centralism under the party apparatus
The socialist doctrine of democratic centralism demands strict hierarchy. It is complemented by the organizational principle of unity of power. The two principles are embodied in the Politburo’s central direction of the state. The secretariat of the Politburo consists of sector-specific departments, which are responsible for the instruction and guidance of state ministries and other agencies.
Democratic centralism means, first, that superior level and basic internal party organizations instruct state administration. According to the doctrine of socialist legality, party decisions and instructions are a more important source of guidance for administrative practices than formal laws or regulations. Second, party organizations at all levels – national, regional, county, and basic party organizations – are bound by instructions from higher level party organizations. According to party statute, every party member at all levels of administration, throughout the state and society, is obliged to maintain party discipline. This means they should abide by the party’s decisions and act to implement them.
Socialist legality instead of rule of law
A second crucial administrative doctrine of communist states is socialist legality. In the socialist view, the law is a tool for the party’s political project. Hence, socialist legality puts political purpose and the party’s decisions before the law. In administrative practice, this means that the state is guided more by party protocol and direct instruction than by law or formal rules.
As a doctrine, socialist legality stands in direct opposition to Western conceptions of rule of law (cf. Spanou, 2020). Among the differences between the two concepts – socialist legality versus the rule of law – three will be highlighted here: first, the lack of clarity and transparency of the political guidance over communist administration; second, the absence of possibilities to appeal administrative decisions; and third, the administrative imperative to political partiality and subjectivity in policy implementation.
Another key feature of the communist administrative model is the practice of wide ranging secrecy. In communist administration vital rules, decrees and instructions can be secret for the eyes of security screened cadre only. For example, throughout history, the structure of nomenclature systems has been kept secret. Little is known about how they function. An important exception is the former East Germany, where historical research on many aspects of communist administration has made singular progress based on the archives, which were opened for research after democratization in 1989-1990.
These structural-organizational principles, rooted in Leninist concepts of democratic centralism and unity of power, have profound implications for governance. While they can foster party discipline and policy implementation, they may also conflict with expectations of transparent, accountable and participatory governance.
Supporters of the NPP, particularly those drawn to its promise of “system change,” should carefully consider how these internal structures might translate into governance practices. The JVP’s reputation for discipline, while admirable in many respects, is a direct product of its communist party structure. This raises important questions about how an NPP-led government would balance party control with the broader societal desire for open, democratic governance.
While many are casting their votes for Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the charismatic leader of the JVP and face of the NPP coalition, it’s crucial to understand that under the principle of democratic centralism, Dissanayake would be bound to follow the decisions of the party’s politburo. The views and intentions of this group of high ranking party members are what matter and are largely unknown to the public.
While the NPP and JVP offer an alternative to the status quo, citizens must understand that their approach to governance may differ significantly from both the current system and Western democratic models. Voters must ask themselves whether the tightly controlled society typical of communist systems aligns with their vision for Sri Lanka’s future, ensuring that their expectations align with the realities of the political structures they may be endorsing at the ballot box.